Protecting Water for Fishermen, Farmers, and all Californians
- Doug Obegi
- Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco
- Blog | About
- Posted August 20, 2009 in Living Sustainably
Yesterday, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a petition to eliminate environmental protections for California's salmon and other endangered fish. PLF and some water users are trying to perpetuate a myth that Californians must choose between people and fish.
Only one small problem - it's a myth.
As George Skelton points out in the LA Times today, the "people versus fish" myth ignores the thousands of jobs in fishing businesses across California that depend on what happens in the Delta and our rivers. Mike Hudson, a commercial salmon fishermen, wrote a compelling rebuttal to PLF's petition yesterday, explaining how the Endangered Species Act protects fishing jobs, and how the closure of the salmon fishery for the past two years is causing job losses and economic pain that's rippling through coastal communities. Mike's piece is online at http://www.onearth.org/node/1340.
As California has demonstrated time and time again, protecting the environment protects California's jobs, our economy, and our quality of life.
Communities across the state are struggling because of three years of drought, from El Centro in the Imperial Valley (which has the highest metro area unemployment in the U.S.) to Mendocino County, from the coast to the San Joaquin Valley. The recession, drops in dairy and some crop prices, the foreclosure crises, and numerous other economic factors are playing a huge role in causing unemployment across the State.
But those communities that have a diverse portfolio of water sources, including alternative water supplies, have done the best job of weathering the past few dry years, and they will be best positioned to deal with the effects of climate change. Ultimately, reducing reliance on the Delta for water supply, and developing regional water solutions that invest in alternative water supplies like water recycling and the other water supply tools in the "Virtual River," is the best solution to meet the water needs of farmers, businesses, residents, fishermen, and the environment, as the Governor's Delta Vision Strategic Plan recommends.
Fallowed fields, closed fisheries, and the collapse of native fish populations like salmon are all symptoms of California's water woes. California can choose to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in alternative water supplies so that we can restore and sustain salmon and try to restore a healthy Delta estuary for future generations, or we can throw away our natural heritage, fishing jobs, and the Delta farmers and fishermen that depend on these protections -- and end up having to make these same investments in alternative water supplies a couple of years later, having squandered our environmental legacy.
California needs water solutions that benefit all Californians and protect our shared environmental heritage -- not more rhetoric.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Dave Simmons — Aug 21 2009 02:39 PM
Maybe the title People vs Fish isn't exaclty right. Maybe it should the title Fish vs a certian group of people ie the water users south of the delta.
There are many things effecting the health of the delta yet the ESA for the last 20 years has been attacking only the water users south of the delta. With no positive effects in fish populations.
Why is it that ESA has never has addressed any of the other health issues of the delta? You Don't have to dig very deep to find the other well known health issues. for instance the 1 billion gallons of partially treated sewage dumped into the delta daily. Pesticide run-off from urban areas. The many non native species, some that prey on endangered fish and others that compete for food.
The ESA has consistantly only punished one group of people. Why is That??? It is just not right and needs to be addressed.
Doug Obegi — Aug 21 2009 03:06 PM
While the best available science shows that water exports from the Delta are likely the most important factor behind the decline of salmon and other fish species in the Delta, you're right that there are other stressors, particularly water pollution. Although it doesn't get as much attention, the ESA has limited pesticide use for agricultural and urban uses in the Delta (and upstream) to protect fish. For decades, fishermen and environmental groups have led efforts to clean up the Delta's water and protect water quality. It's great that there is more attention being paid to these issues now.
But with respect to your other comment about the ESA not showing positive benefits for fish, that's also something of a myth. The ESA and other environmental laws have shown positive impacts on fish populations -- at least when the laws have actually been implemented. Back in the 1990s, after the CVPIA was enacted and salmon and delta smelt were listed under the ESA, fish actually did better, with salmon numbers rebounding toward the end of the decade, with the fall run peaking in 2002. Water exports averaged around 5-5.5 million acre feet per year during the 1990s.
Then the Bush Administration used junk science to undermine implementing the ESA and other laws, and water exports reached record levels (up to nearly 6.5 million acre feet per year). Salmon and other fish species in the Delta collapsed in the last decade.
There's no question that other factors, such as hydrology and water pollution, play a role in these declines, but the significant increase in water exports from the Delta is one of the biggest changes in the past couple decades.
As one example, below is a link to a chart showing monitoring data for Delta smelt, which shows its population over the past several decades, with the recent years hitting record lows.
http://delta.dfg.ca.gov/data/mwt/Indices/sld002.asp
Dave Simmons — Aug 22 2009 12:57 PM
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I would like to see a healthy delta and I believe it will benefit all of us California.
1 billion gallons a day of partially treated sewage being dumped in the delta. Also 260 invasive, or nonnative, species – some that prey directly on the endangered fish and others that voraciously consume its food source are in my opinion are pretty large changes for the delta. Many of those changes have also occurred in the last couple of decades.
There are those in the scientific community that believe instead of 1 single smoking gun believe that there are probably a combination of factors effecting the decline of endangered fish. Yet the front on returning the delta to a healthy state has consistently had only one single front and has looked the other way on everything else.